One possible interpretation is the use of the Interfaces defined in the
CORBAmed IDL as the layer that allows our apps to talk to each
other. These are public, "free", specifications that anyone can
implement. This enforces the idea that the implementation is totally
separate from the interface. The data models may need some additional
agreements to provide full interoperability.
Dave
John S. Gage writes:
> I'm not sure what this means. Please explain.
> John
>
> Tim Cook wrote:
> >
> > > 2. What should the alliance's stance be on "purity" of
> > > components? Should
> > > we consider an open source project (like the GEHR API) based
> > > on a non-open
> > > source programming language (like Eiffel) -- "open source"?
> > > How about open source Java code?
> >
> > I believe our stance is/should be: that the core/kernel/communications API
> > (whatever we choose to call the layer that allows our apps to talk to each
> > other) is GPL 'information', it is not source code. So whatever/however
> > anyone uses it to implement a solution is of no consideration. But, each
> > time it is used it gets stronger in the marketplace of methodologies.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > "The box said `Windows 95 or better', so I use Linux!"
> > Opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of BMHCC
> > Tim Cook, IS Ops Coordinator Office (901) 884-8710
> > Information Systems Fax (901) 884-8603
>
